This is a big reason I think there should be greater player movement, not less. Teams toss assets aside to be players in free agency or the draft, instead of building on a true foundation. If teams old target players that fit a viable plan, and acquire enough of them without needing to overpay in such a restricted market, then a ton of teams would offer competitive rosters, and those with losing records one season could turn things around in the next. Now we have this formula for parity that seems to only offer an equal opportunity to try to get one or two top twenty players and lock them up for as long as possible with little chance to build much around those kinds of players. And in the absence of those players, there is more concern for ensuring there is cap room to acquire them or enough losing to draft them, then there is on building a foundation as a team that will allow for sustained success. It is going to take more than what is basically a hard cap to bring parity. I would suggest greater player movement through free agency and allowing fewer exceptions would play a bigger role than the hardest of caps. All the harder cap does is allow owners to justify shit basketball for a number of seasons. It's a business model that serves the fans terribly. Of course they get to imagine that the players in their city are loyal and there to stay for many years, for the most part, but I think there is little to no value in that.